Laserfiche WebLink
File Number: 16-662 <br />The Appellant presents a number of points including statements that its particular product has <br />certain features that differentiate it from other types of electric fences. Appellant also <br />presents alternative interpretations of the Zoning Code and State law from that of staff. The <br />appeal before the City Council is to determine whether or not electric fences are a permitted <br />use in the Zoning Code. As the Zoning Code operates under the principles of permissive <br />zoning and electric fences are not identified as a permitted use, both the Zoning Enforcement <br />Official and the Board of Zoning Adjustments have made the determination that electric <br />fences are not permitted. <br />Staff is unable to make findings that electric fences are similar to other types of fences <br />permitted under the Zoning Code. Given the number of challenges and concerns that electric <br />fences pose, staff would not support enabling their use without having specific Zoning Code <br />provisions in place to address those concerns. <br />Environmental Review <br />Consideration of an action on an Appeal does not constitute a “project” within the meaning of <br />Public Resources Code Section 21065, 14 Cal Code Regs. Sections 15060(c)(2), 15060(c) <br />(3), or 15378 because it has no potential for resulting in either a direct physical change in the <br />environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect change in the environment. Furthermore, <br />the appeal relates to a decision involving a ministerial action defined under Section 21080(b) <br />(1), which is deemed categorically exempt under Section 15300.1. Projects which are <br />disapproved are statutorily exempt from CEQA under Article 18, Section 15270. <br />Board/Commission Review and Actions <br />The Board of Zoning Adjustments considered the appeal at its November 3, 2016 hearing and <br />voted 7-0 to uphold the determination of the Zoning Enforcement Official (ZEO) through <br />approval of Resolution 2016-001 (attached). Michael Pate, John Lee, and attorney Robert <br />Ahn spoke at the meeting on behalf of the Appellant, Electric Guard Dog LLC. No one from <br />the public spoke on this item and no public correspondence was received. <br />Summary of Public Outreach Efforts <br />As per the City’s noticing requirements, a legal advertisement for the City Council <br />consideration of this appeal was published in the East Bay Times on January 27, 2017. Staff <br />has not received any public comments regarding this appeal prior to the filing of this report. <br />Aside from comments from the Appellant, no public comments were presented to the Board of <br />Zoning Adjustments regarding this appeal. A representative of the Appellant requested and <br />was granted a continuation at the prior December 19, 2016 City Council hearing, but no public <br />comments were made. <br />Fiscal Impacts <br />The Appellant has paid a deposit and filing fee for the processing of this appeal. There are no <br />fiscal impacts associated with this decision. <br />ATTACHMENT(S) <br />Page 4 City of San Leandro Printed on 1/31/2017 <br />14